Chapter 45: Motor Vehicle Cases
1. Harry Jacocks and Dorothy Jacocks v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water, No. W2008-00802-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 13, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"This is a negligence action. Appellees filed a complaint against Appellant alleging that its employee negligently drove a company truck into the back of Appellees’ car. Appellant was granted partial summary judgment because a latent mechanical problem caused its truck’s brakes to fail. The trial court then held a bench trial to determine if the employee’s negligent driving was also a cause of the accident. Although it made no findings of fact, the trial court concluded that the employee was negligent, and awarded Appellee, Harry Jacocks $15,350 in damages. Appellant appeals, asserting that the evidence presented does not support the trial court’s judgment. Because we agree that the evidence was insufficient, we reverse the judgment of the trial court."
2. Barbara Stricklan and husband, Reed Stricklan, v. Johnny C. Patterson, No. E2008-00203-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 4, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"In this action for damages for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident, the jury returned verdicts for the plaintiffs. Defendant has appealed and on appeal raises the issues of whether there was sufficient and competent proof to support plaintiff’s claim for medical expenses; whether the Court erred in allowing plaintiff's treating physician to offer an opinion on permanent impairment, and he questioned whether the jury verdict was contrary to the "weight of evidence". On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court."
NEW SECTION: UNINSURED MOTORIST CASES - SERVICE OF PROCESS
1. Mary Agnes Fagg v. Helen C. Buettner, No. M2007-02748-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"In this action against an uninsured motorist, the trial judge dismissed the defendant insurance company from the lawsuit on the ground that plaintiff failed to fulfill her obligation to serve process upon the uninsured motorist pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-1206. The defendant insurance company filed a motion to dismiss after plaintiff failed to file a fourth summons on the uninsured motorist within one year of the last unsuccessful attempt when plaintiff’s first three attempts to obtain service of process on the uninsured motorist were returned “not to be found in my county.” The trial court found that plaintiff’s claims against the uninsured motorist were barred by the statute of limitations, dismissed the claims against the motorist, and subsequently granted the defendant insurance company’s motion to dismiss. We have determined plaintiff fulfilled the obligations of Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-1206 and therefore, the trial court improperly dismissed plaintiff’s claims against the defendant insurance company."
2. Lucy C. Kirby, et al vs. Robert P. Wooley, No. E2008-00916-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2009).
The Court's Summary:
This lawsuit arises out of an automobile accident. At the time of the accident, Robert P. Wooley (“the defendant”) gave an address in Lexington, Kentucky. Lucy C. Kirby and her husband (“the plaintiffs”) filed suit and also caused a summons to be issued and served on their automobile casualty insurance company, Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“the uninsured motorist carrier”). Unbeknownst to the plaintiffs, the defendant had died of unrelated causes some six months after the motor vehicle accident, and before the lawsuit was filed. Service on the uninsured motorist carrier was effected, but service of process on the nonresident defendant through the Secretary of State was returned marked “Moved No Forwarding Address.” The plaintiffs proceeded against the uninsured motorist carrier; they did not learn until some two years after filing suit that the defendant was dead. When they learned of his death, the plaintiffs had alias process issued and successfully served on the administratrix of the estate of the defendant and subsequently on the administrator ad litem of the estate. The trial court granted summary judgment to both the defendant and the uninsured motorist carrier, predicated on the court's holding that the plaintiffs failed to comply with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 3. We hold that the resolution of the controversy in this case is controlled by Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-1206(d) and (e) (2008) and not by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 3 and that, under the applicable statute, service of process was properly and effectively made upon both the uninsured motorist carrier and the defendant. The trial court incorrectly granted summary judgment to both. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment below and remand for further proceedings.
The Court's Summary:
"This is a negligence action. Appellees filed a complaint against Appellant alleging that its employee negligently drove a company truck into the back of Appellees’ car. Appellant was granted partial summary judgment because a latent mechanical problem caused its truck’s brakes to fail. The trial court then held a bench trial to determine if the employee’s negligent driving was also a cause of the accident. Although it made no findings of fact, the trial court concluded that the employee was negligent, and awarded Appellee, Harry Jacocks $15,350 in damages. Appellant appeals, asserting that the evidence presented does not support the trial court’s judgment. Because we agree that the evidence was insufficient, we reverse the judgment of the trial court."
2. Barbara Stricklan and husband, Reed Stricklan, v. Johnny C. Patterson, No. E2008-00203-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 4, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"In this action for damages for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident, the jury returned verdicts for the plaintiffs. Defendant has appealed and on appeal raises the issues of whether there was sufficient and competent proof to support plaintiff’s claim for medical expenses; whether the Court erred in allowing plaintiff's treating physician to offer an opinion on permanent impairment, and he questioned whether the jury verdict was contrary to the "weight of evidence". On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court."
3. Ronald E. Crook v. Landon Despeaux, No. W2007-00941-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment in a personal injury case. The plaintiff, a diabetic, consumed a substantial amount of alcohol and then proceeded to drive south towards an intersection. At about the same time, the defendant was traveling east toward the same intersection. The plaintiff’s vehicle skidded, hit the curb, and then collided with a telephone pole. After the one-car accident, the plaintiff followed the defendant and his family to a nearby parking lot and accused the defendant of running the stop sign at the intersection and causing the plaintiff’s accident. After that, the police arrived and gave the plaintiff a breathalyzer test, which he failed. The plaintiff was later convicted of reckless driving and driving under the influence of an intoxicant in connection with the accident. At his criminal trial, the plaintiff admitted drinking alcohol and that his tires were in poor condition. The plaintiff nevertheless filed a negligence claim against the defendant. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding that, based on the plaintiff diabetic’s intoxication and faulty tires, he was, as a matter of law, at least fifty percent at fault for his own injuries. The plaintiff appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm."
4. Ivy Joe Clark and Vicky Clark, Individually and as Husband and Wife v. Joyce Ann Shoaf, et al., No. W2008-00617-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
This dispute concerns the extent to which Appellant/Unnamed Defendant insurance carrier is liable for damages under Plaintiff/Claimant’s uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance coverage where Defendant’s motor vehicle insurance carrier become insolvent during the pendency of the appeal of the matter. The trial court held Appellant insurance carrier was liable for the judgment rendered in Plaintiff’s favor up to the amount of Plaintiff’s uninsured motorist coverage. We affirm.
The Court's Summary:
"This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment in a personal injury case. The plaintiff, a diabetic, consumed a substantial amount of alcohol and then proceeded to drive south towards an intersection. At about the same time, the defendant was traveling east toward the same intersection. The plaintiff’s vehicle skidded, hit the curb, and then collided with a telephone pole. After the one-car accident, the plaintiff followed the defendant and his family to a nearby parking lot and accused the defendant of running the stop sign at the intersection and causing the plaintiff’s accident. After that, the police arrived and gave the plaintiff a breathalyzer test, which he failed. The plaintiff was later convicted of reckless driving and driving under the influence of an intoxicant in connection with the accident. At his criminal trial, the plaintiff admitted drinking alcohol and that his tires were in poor condition. The plaintiff nevertheless filed a negligence claim against the defendant. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding that, based on the plaintiff diabetic’s intoxication and faulty tires, he was, as a matter of law, at least fifty percent at fault for his own injuries. The plaintiff appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm."
4. Ivy Joe Clark and Vicky Clark, Individually and as Husband and Wife v. Joyce Ann Shoaf, et al., No. W2008-00617-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
This dispute concerns the extent to which Appellant/Unnamed Defendant insurance carrier is liable for damages under Plaintiff/Claimant’s uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance coverage where Defendant’s motor vehicle insurance carrier become insolvent during the pendency of the appeal of the matter. The trial court held Appellant insurance carrier was liable for the judgment rendered in Plaintiff’s favor up to the amount of Plaintiff’s uninsured motorist coverage. We affirm.
NEW SECTION: UNINSURED MOTORIST CASES - SERVICE OF PROCESS
1. Mary Agnes Fagg v. Helen C. Buettner, No. M2007-02748-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"In this action against an uninsured motorist, the trial judge dismissed the defendant insurance company from the lawsuit on the ground that plaintiff failed to fulfill her obligation to serve process upon the uninsured motorist pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-1206. The defendant insurance company filed a motion to dismiss after plaintiff failed to file a fourth summons on the uninsured motorist within one year of the last unsuccessful attempt when plaintiff’s first three attempts to obtain service of process on the uninsured motorist were returned “not to be found in my county.” The trial court found that plaintiff’s claims against the uninsured motorist were barred by the statute of limitations, dismissed the claims against the motorist, and subsequently granted the defendant insurance company’s motion to dismiss. We have determined plaintiff fulfilled the obligations of Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-1206 and therefore, the trial court improperly dismissed plaintiff’s claims against the defendant insurance company."
2. Lucy C. Kirby, et al vs. Robert P. Wooley, No. E2008-00916-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2009).
The Court's Summary:
This lawsuit arises out of an automobile accident. At the time of the accident, Robert P. Wooley (“the defendant”) gave an address in Lexington, Kentucky. Lucy C. Kirby and her husband (“the plaintiffs”) filed suit and also caused a summons to be issued and served on their automobile casualty insurance company, Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“the uninsured motorist carrier”). Unbeknownst to the plaintiffs, the defendant had died of unrelated causes some six months after the motor vehicle accident, and before the lawsuit was filed. Service on the uninsured motorist carrier was effected, but service of process on the nonresident defendant through the Secretary of State was returned marked “Moved No Forwarding Address.” The plaintiffs proceeded against the uninsured motorist carrier; they did not learn until some two years after filing suit that the defendant was dead. When they learned of his death, the plaintiffs had alias process issued and successfully served on the administratrix of the estate of the defendant and subsequently on the administrator ad litem of the estate. The trial court granted summary judgment to both the defendant and the uninsured motorist carrier, predicated on the court's holding that the plaintiffs failed to comply with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 3. We hold that the resolution of the controversy in this case is controlled by Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-1206(d) and (e) (2008) and not by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 3 and that, under the applicable statute, service of process was properly and effectively made upon both the uninsured motorist carrier and the defendant. The trial court incorrectly granted summary judgment to both. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment below and remand for further proceedings.
NEW SECTION - UNINSURED MOTORIST CASES - PREJUDGMENT INTEREST
1. James L. Ferguson, et al vs. John F. Jenkins, No. E2007-02501-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"The issue in this case is whether the trial court erred in awarding interest against an uninsured motorist (“UM”) insurer that resulted in an award in excess of the applicable UM coverage limits. After careful review, we hold that the trial court erred in awarding prejudgment interest to the insured under the circumstances and reverse the prejudgment interest award. The trial court’s award of postjudgment interest from the time that the trial court entered an order awarding the insured $50,000, the policy limit of UM coverage after offsetting a prior $50,000 settlement with the tortfeasor’s insurer, until the date the insurer paid the policy limit, is affirmed."
NEW SECTION - UNINSURED MOTORIST CASES - STATUTORILY MANDATED COVERAGE LIMIT
1. Gary W. Hannah and Janet Hannah v. Kenny K. Wang and Hartford Insurance Company, No. M2006-00943-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
Gary W. Hannah and Janet Hannah (“Plaintiffs”) sued Kenny K. Wang (“Wang”) for damages resulting from a motor vehicle accident. Wang answered the complaint admitting that “he was guilty of simple negligence and that he is one hundred (100%) percent liable for causing this accident….” The Hartford (“Hartford”) answered the complaint as the Plaintiffs’ uninsured motorist carrier. Hartford filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that its uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage was less than Wang’s coverage. After a hearing, the Trial Court entered an order granting summary judgment to Hartford. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court claiming that it was error for the Trial Court to grant summary judgment because a question existed as to whether the statutorily mandated uninsured/underinsured coverage limit had been properly rejected. We find and hold that the statutorily mandated uninsured/underinsured coverage limit was properly rejected and affirm the grant of summary judgment.
1. James L. Ferguson, et al vs. John F. Jenkins, No. E2007-02501-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"The issue in this case is whether the trial court erred in awarding interest against an uninsured motorist (“UM”) insurer that resulted in an award in excess of the applicable UM coverage limits. After careful review, we hold that the trial court erred in awarding prejudgment interest to the insured under the circumstances and reverse the prejudgment interest award. The trial court’s award of postjudgment interest from the time that the trial court entered an order awarding the insured $50,000, the policy limit of UM coverage after offsetting a prior $50,000 settlement with the tortfeasor’s insurer, until the date the insurer paid the policy limit, is affirmed."
NEW SECTION - UNINSURED MOTORIST CASES - STATUTORILY MANDATED COVERAGE LIMIT
1. Gary W. Hannah and Janet Hannah v. Kenny K. Wang and Hartford Insurance Company, No. M2006-00943-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
Gary W. Hannah and Janet Hannah (“Plaintiffs”) sued Kenny K. Wang (“Wang”) for damages resulting from a motor vehicle accident. Wang answered the complaint admitting that “he was guilty of simple negligence and that he is one hundred (100%) percent liable for causing this accident….” The Hartford (“Hartford”) answered the complaint as the Plaintiffs’ uninsured motorist carrier. Hartford filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that its uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage was less than Wang’s coverage. After a hearing, the Trial Court entered an order granting summary judgment to Hartford. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court claiming that it was error for the Trial Court to grant summary judgment because a question existed as to whether the statutorily mandated uninsured/underinsured coverage limit had been properly rejected. We find and hold that the statutorily mandated uninsured/underinsured coverage limit was properly rejected and affirm the grant of summary judgment.